[lawgirl]

I think that the executive has to use his executive order VERY carefully, and highly charged issues are not where they need to be used. Then you set up a pattern of back and forth--one president signs it in, the other repeals it and signs it out again. In a highly controversial issue I don't think that helps the country--I think it creates a feeling of unsettled law which is NOT a good thing. The executive order should be the LAST resort, not the first. Otherwise you have yourself a king.

Right in Virginia--what's hard to understand about my statement? The Justices in this country have to be separate from all influence, one of the reasons SOP was set up in the first place. They need to look ONLY at the constitution.

And, based on this interpretation of separation of powers, McConnell and friends (members of the legislative branch) should not go before the Supreme Court and argue against the campaign finance reform bill.

Yes I agree with that. I don't feel comfortable with anyone lobbying the supreme court, and especially the legislature. In this instance, the judicial system will be arguing the case for the government, (and I still say the president shouldn't get involved on a direct level) but the legislature really needs to butt out.

Clinton is scum---it's for the judicial to decide in this case as it has been brought through the court system in a case. Someone filed a case, which makes the issue at that point the providence of the judiciary. ANd I think that in highly controversial issues YES the judiciary should settle them. The judiciary is to be non-partisan and only look at the law. That is indeed who I want to be deciding a controversial law--people that are outside a circle of influence and looking only at our laws--not people that are always eyeing their reelection status.

WOSG--I am glad you agree with me. Conservative judges will eliminate a lot of this concern.

[TLBSHOW]

Sign an executive order ending affirmative action. And one ending Abortion

[Right_in_Virginia]

"...what's so hard to understand about my statement? The Justices in this country have to be separate from all influence, one of the reasons the SOP was set up in the first place. They need to look ONLY at the constitution."

I equate "influence" with corruption...the kind of corruption that stems from some other party having control over whether or not a justice remains on the bench.

The Founders eliminated your definition of "influence" by making the Judiciary a co-equal branch of government AND deeming a Supreme Court Justice to be a justice for life. I don't agree with your premise that "influence" can be defined as merely presenting an argument before the Supreme Court.

Neither the president nor a legislator has any power to remove a judge (for other than those reasons the Founders were wise enough to itemize~~and even that demands a trial.)

Which brings me back to my point about this pending affirmative action suit. ~ If the administration chooses to stay neutral and not present a brief to the Supreme Court--it will be doing so for political reasons and not because the beautifully crafted separation of powers in the Constitution demands it.

(Wow, I think this is my longest post to date ;^) )